\section{Transition Theory}
\label{sec:transition}

Transition theory is an approach to analyse the socio-technical transition in a socio-technical system. It is \textit{``... based on variations of [timing] and [nature] of multilevel interactions''} \citep[p. 399]{GEELS}. Geels and Scott define \textit{``transitions as changes from one socio-technical regime to another''} \citep[p. 399]{GEELS}. \bigskip

\noindent Change in the socio-technical regime requires changes in multiple levels enforced by different social, economical and institutional factors. Taking all these factors into consideration, Geels and Scott use multi-level perspective (MLP), \textit{``which understands transitions as out comes of alignments between developments at multiple levels''} \citep[p. 399]{GEELS}.

\subsection{The Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) on Transitions in Socio-Technical Systems}
\noindent The MLP defines three levels of analytical concepts \citep[p. 399]{GEELS}:
\begin{description}

 	\item[Niche-innovations] Innovations take place in technological niches where they develop internal momentum through learning processes, price/ performance improvements, and support from regime actors or external actors turning into a new possible socio-technical regime. One can argue ICN as a niche-innovation.
  	\item[Socio-technical regimes] It is the existing technology or regime. Host-Centric or IP based networking forms the socio-technical regime in our context.
  	\item[Socio-technical landscape] It forms an external environment beyond the direct influence of niche-innovations and regime actors. Some of the landscape are political developments, changes in macro environment.
\end{description}

\noindent Geels and Schot describe the relation between niche-innovations, socio-tech{\-}nical regimes and socio-technical landscape and further elaborate that

\begin{quote}

\textit{``transitions come about through interaction processes at [...] three levels: (a)niche-innovations build up internal momentum, thro{\-}ugh learning process, price/performance improvements, and support from powerful groups, (b) changes at the landscape level create pressure on the regime and (c) destabilisation of the regime creates windows of opportunity for niche innovations. The alignment of of these processes enables the breakthrough of novelties in mainstream markets where they compete with the existing regime.''} \citep[p. 400]{GEELS}

\end{quote} 
This basically means that regime change is a function of niche-innovation, socio-technical landscape, or both.

Furthermore, Geels and Schot explain that the \textit{``social-technical re{\-}gimes stabilise existing trajectories in many ways: cognitive routines that blind engineers to developments outside their focus, regulations and standards, adaptation of lifestyles to technical systems, sunk investments in machines, infrastructures and competencies''} \citep[p. 400]{GEELS} whereas the niche-innovations and socio-technical landscape tends to destabilize the existing trajectories. This conceptualization of regime change is also supported by Smith et al. as they \textit{``understand regime change to be a function of two processes: (1) shifting selection pressures on the regime, (2) the coordination of resources available inside and outside the regime to adapt to these pressure. Selection pressures consist of economic pressures(competition, taxes, changes, regulations), broad political, social and economic landscape developments (e.g. demographic shifts, rise of consumer culture, neo-liberal model of globalisation) and pressures that `bubble up from below, from innovative niches that are not yet so established as to constitute a regime' ''} \citep[p. 400]{GEELS}. \bigskip


\noindent From the above discussion it is clearly seen that a technology will not be able to go through a successful transition if there is no proper alignment in the three levels i.e. niche-innovation, socio-technical regime, and socio-technical landscape. The inferior situation where the socio-technical regime is not able to transit towards the new successful regime may be caused by path dependency, lock-in, high switching cost and network effects. Also, constantly keeping our research question in mind, it is relevant for us to discuss these concepts. Furthermore, our research question is focused on transition in socio-technical regime, which is highly influenced by innovation theory. At last, transition in a socio-technical regime is also highly influenced by different organizations, laws and volunteer actors.

\textit{``Besides the design of the technological components, complex technological system require an institutional structure that coordinates the positions, relations and behaviour of the parties that own and operate the system. Aside from a technological design, an institutional design is also needed''} \citep[p. 241]{JOOP}. So, it is also very important for us to understand the concept of institutional theory to answer our research question properly.


\subsection{Relationships between MLP-Levels and Institutions}
\noindent As described by Geels and Schot, different MLP levels share different sets of rules and actions:

\begin{quote}
\textit{``For regimes these rules are stable and well articulated; for niche-innovations, they are unstable and `in the making'.''} \citep[p. 402]{GEELS}
\end{quote}

\noindent The set of rules or laws are articulated by different actors, which can be different standard setting organizations, government organizations, market forces etc. and these structures, which govern some kind of community, are termed as institutions. So, before describing the institutional roles in transition, it seems important to understand the concept of institutional design for a complex technological system. It is not necessary that different technological systems follow the same institutional design. \cite{JOOP} have developed a theoretical approach regarding institutional design for complex technological system where they say:
\begin{quote}
	\textit{``In view for the complexity and multi actor nature of technologically complex systems, a design cannot be a `blueprint' created through an intellectual process by a designer behind the desk. In as far as systems are created in such a manner, they are often adapted (beyond recognition) in the processes by which they are decided upon and implemented.''} \citep[p. 242]{JOOP}
\end{quote}

\noindent They further argue that while designing an institution, \textit{``[a]ttention is given to who ought to be involved in the design process, how this involvement must take place, what rules are relevant, what subjects are to be considered, what auxiliary conditions must be met, how the process should be supervised, etc.''} \citep[p. 243]{JOOP}\bigskip

\noindent Lack of proper institutional design may lead to coordination problems and `the problem of collective action'. Joop Koppenjan and John Groenewegen present their description of coordination problems by saying that

\begin{quote}
\textit{``technological systems are often characterised by common goods aspects such as free riding. Different actors want to use the system for their own benefit (`take'), but are not inclined to contribute to the maintenance (`to bring'). When appropriation and provision are not balanced, there is a risk that the common good will be `exhausted'.''} \citep[p. 244]{JOOP}
\end{quote}
Similarly, they explain collective action as a multi-motive game where \textit{``there is no overall goal, but each party has its own reasons to participate''} \citep[p. 244]{JOOP}. Furthermore, Olsen et. al elaborates that in the environment, where organizations \textit{``contribute on voluntary basis and a clear hierarchy is missing, cooperation is hindered by strategic uncertainty: it is not certain whether others will participate if they do, whether an agreement can be reached  and whether they will honour that agreement''} \citep[p. 244]{JOOP}. \bigskip 

\noindent Beside developing a proper institutional design it is also important that these institutions adopt a gradual change along with the change in socio-technological system. But sometime it is very difficult to change institutions and one of the reason for this is that \textit{``institutions [...] are established in an arena where not only one party makes a decision on the basis of rational design but where multiple parties push and pull and negotiate about institutions''} \citep[p. 250]{JOOP}. This description above goes hand in hand with what Geels and Schot explain as a socio-institutional process, \textit{``where actors directly negotiate about rules in communities''} \citep[p.404]{GEELS}.

Different views are presented to judge the technology by different researchers. Guard and Rappa describe this as competition in the institutional environment \citep[p. 405]{GEELS}. Further, Geels and Schot argue that, when new technologies appear, different institutions deal with it with different interpretations and solutions. Eventually, one of the interpretations become dominant and the others cease to exist. \textit{``This involves the build-up of a shared cognitive frame, which includes elements such as goals, key problems, problem-solving strategies (heuristics), requirements to be met by problem solutions, current theories, tacit knowledge, testing procedure, and design methods and criteria''} \citep[p. 405]{GEELS}. \bigskip

\noindent Geels and Schot discuss institutional behaviours on multi-levels. Institutional behaviour can act as a stabilizer for the regime preventing transition but on the other hand it can also exert pressure on the regime and enforce transition. They further argue that \textit{``[r]ules are not just [constraining] (making some actions more legitimate than others) but also [enabling] (converging actions, predictability, trust, reliability). An important difference between niches and regimes is that the constraining influence is much stronger for the [regimes]''} \citep[p. 403]{GEELS}. \bigskip

\noindent This theoretical approach will enable us to analyse institutional behaviour as well as understand the institutional design of the current host-centric regime and how they are acting upon ICN.

\subsection{Transition Pathways}
\noindent After having a brief knowledge about transition following MLP and understanding the concept of institutional theory, it is also important for us to have an understanding of different paths for transition and the circumstances that supports these transitions. Geels and Schot describe the transition pathways using the evolutionary and socio-institutional aspects. They distinguish transition pathways by combining two criteria \citep[p. 405]{GEELS}.

\begin{description}

\item[Timing of interactions:] The possibility of a niche-innovation to make a breakthrough widely depends on: if (a) learning process has developed in to a dominant design, (b) the niche-innovation is supported by powerful actors, (c) price/performance improvements have improved and there are strong expectations for further improvements (e.g. learning curves), and (d) the niche-innovation market amount to more than 5{\%} market share (i.e. the diffusion curve becomes self sustaining). Changes in landscapes can open up windows of opportunity for transition by creating pressure on the existing regime, \textit{``but if the niche-innovations are not fully developed they cannot take advantages of this window, which may subsequently close''} \citep[p. 406]{GEELS}.

\item[Nature of interaction:] The relationship between the existing regime and niche-innovations can be competitive or symbiotic, depending on if the niche-innovation can act as competence-enhancing add-on in the existing regime, or if it aims to replace it. Similarly, the relationship between the existing regime with landscape developments can be reinforcing or disruptive depending on if the landscape developments have stabilising effects or if the landscape developments puts pressure on the existing regime, creating impulses for change.

\end{description}

\noindent On the basis of these two criteria, Geels and Schot have developed a proposition for different transition pathways \citep[p. 406]{GEELS}:

\begin{description}

\item[Reproduction process:] In the absence of landscape pressure, the regime remains stable and reproduce itself. \textit{``Radical niche-innovations may be present, but have little chance to break through as long as the regime is dynamically stable. Reinforcing landscape developments help stabilise the regime. There may be internal regime problems, but the shared perception is that the regime has sufficient problem-solving potential to deal with them''} \citep[p. 406]{GEELS}.

\item[Transformation path:] If the landscape pressure is moderate when the ni{\-}che innovations have not yet fully developed, then regime actors will change the direction of development paths and innovation activities \citep[p. 406]{GEELS}. But landscape change can exert pressure, if the change is supported by regime actors. Furthermore, different external actors also exert pressure for transition by drawing attention to negative externalities. According to Geels and Schot these external actors may be societal pressure groups, professional scientists or engineers, outsider firms and entrepreneurs \citep[p. 406]{GEELS}. This landscape pressure and outside criticism cannot lead to transition immediately. \textit{``This usually involves conflicts, contestations, power struggles or dedicated translations.''} \citep[p. 406]{GEELS} If the knowledge gap between regime actors and external knowledge is not too large then niche innovations add to the regime and do not disrupt the basic architecture \citep[p. 407]{GEELS}. This can be seen as an incremental innovation.

\item[De-alignment and re-alignment path:] \textit{``If landscape change is diverg{\-}ent, large and sudden ('avalanche change'), then increasing regime problems may cause regime actors to lose faith''} \citep[p. 408]{GEELS}. And during this sudden landscape pressure, if niche innovations are not fully developed to replace the old regime, then multiple niche innovations compete for attention and resources. Finally, one of the niche innovations wins the battle and forms the foundation for realignment of a new regime \citep[p. 408]{GEELS}. 

\item[Technological substitution:] \textit{``If there is much landscape pressure (`specific shock', `avalanche change', `disruptive change') at a moment when niche innovations have developed sufficiently, the later will break thro{\-}ugh and replace the existing regime''} \citep[p. 409]{GEELS}. This pathway occurs when there is a radical innovation, which is strong enough to erode the existing regime. Geels and Schot characterize this pathway as a technology-push, where wider co-evolution processes follow substitution \citep[p. 409]{GEELS}.

\item[Reconfiguration pathway:] In this pathway, the new regime is developed from the old regime as in the transformation pathway. Some innovations developed in niches are adopted as add-on or replacement component in the regime. \textit{``These adoptions are driven by economic considerations (improve performance, solve small problems), leaving most regime rules unchanged''} \citep[p. 411]{GEELS}. The adoptions may lead to major changes in the regime, generating new space for new adoptions of niche innovations. These new adoptions  may add up to major reconfigurations and regime changes over time \citep[p. 411]{GEELS}.

\end{description}

\noindent Although Geels and Schot describe different transition pathways under different conditions they further elaborate that there may appear crossovers between different transition pathways.



  





